European Union | European Regional Development Fund TANIA - Overview of (Nano)remediation Challenges Introduction Document Objectives The present document summarises the findings from exchange among TANIA project partners throughout the first year of work (2017). It is designed as a tool to support further exchange in Project Year 2 (2018). During Year 2, partners and their stakeholders (TANIA Project Stakeholders – TPS) move from activities designed to set the scene for their territories and understand the nanoremediation concept (step 1 of activities), towards interregional and regional exchange to Merge Expertise, thus identifying practical policy solutions to nanoremediation challenges. TANIA partners participate in the project, as they believe that nanoremediation can provide opportunities for their regional remediation activities. They started the project seeking to understand whether or not the following hypothesis can be relevant for their regions. HYPOTHESIS Nanoremediation has the potential to provide significant comparative advantages in relation to current, time-consuming solutions for remediation of polluted soil and water. It is an innovative, low cost technology, with the potential to save time and money in treating several types of contaminants, with minimal risks in terms of production and use. Nanoremediation can provide excellent environmental and economic opportunities, especially through opening of new markets, strengthening of circular economy and creation of new jobs. Should this hypothesis prove correct, partners could design the best way to insert the concept into their selected regional policy instruments. 1 (Nano)remediation During the first year of exchange, project partners specifically requested that the scope of project analysis be widened to cover not only nanoremediation, but also novel techniques for remediation in general. Indeed, partners believe that nanoremediation should not be considered as a possible miracle cure, but rather as a solution that could be added to the remediation toolbox of combined, innovative techniques. TANIA deals with innovative solutions for environmental remediation based on advanced materials (not just nano). Moreover, when we talk about nanoremediation we do not only mean nano-sized materials injected into the environment, but also nanostructured materials (use of advanced materials, with smart features). This can be macro-sized material, whose nano-structuring has created different and strengthened capacities, for example greater filtration capacity, absorption, capture of specific pollutants, etc. Nanoremediation also includes biocompatible nano-containers (for example, already tested in medicine, or used in agriculture) with ability to carry and to deliver 1 Policy Instruments for each TANIA region are listed on the project website: https://www.interregeurope.eu/tania/ European Union | European Regional Development Fund substances that can address pollutants to the right place, in the right moment (nano-carrier, nano- delivery). To this end, partners agreed on a simple technique to clarify the fact that the project covers nanoremediation and other innovative techniques for remediation. In project documents, the phrasing “(nano)remediation” will be used. Challenges to (nano)remediation Some challenges limit diffusion of nanoremediation and full exploitation of its benefits. During the TANIA application phase, 5 main challenges were grouped in categories of requirements for policy intervention and support. Following work carried out at regional and project level, challenges were reassessed to 6 by project partners, decoupling “pilot applications” from “patenting” activities, better responding to partners’ needs. These challenges are listed and described as follows: Regional Ranking of TANIA Challenges Partners undertook an assessment of the challenges in relations to regional characteristics and needs. In cooperation with local stakeholders, they prioritised each challenge as follows: European Union | European Regional Development Fund The following sub-sections describe the motivations for this prioritisation and some areas of interest emerging from exchange. Challenge 1 – Public Support for R&I The relevance of public support for Research and Innovation is highlighted by its overall priority level among partners. It is the only one identified with the highest ranking by every participating region. Reasons for such prioritisation are linked to the necessity to obtain strong research results to prove or disprove the above mentioned hypothesis about application of (nano)remediation techniques. Considering the novelty of nanoremediation techniques and nanotechnology more generally, funding for R&I should cover analysis related to: • Safety and efficiency, to be demonstrated firstly at lab scale, in order to overcome present high degrees of uncertainty. • Environmental needs: vast amounts of contaminated areas in every region require new solutions to be found for guaranteeing effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. • Links between academia and business sector, to translate theoretical findings into applicative tools. Collaborations between research organisations and enterprises are recognised as fundamental to open new markets and boost economic opportunities. It is also important to analyse how support to Research and Innovation is allocated. In particular, TANIA partners believe that funds should be easily accessible and manageable to research organisations and enterprises. This aspect should be further analysed with reference to each region’s selected policy instrument. European Union | European Regional Development Fund Challenge 2 – Standardised Methodology Following the 1 st Challenge, the need for a standardised methodology is identified by partners as the second most important issue to be addressed. Challenge n. 2 received the highest degree of relevance by 3 regions (Tuscany, Paijat-Haame and Baranya County) and a medium priority by the remaining 2 regions (GrandEst and Crete). Due to its innovative features, nanotechnology for remediation would benefit from a standardised methodology to evaluate, monitor and control the proposed technological solutions. However, there is currently an absence of an European regulatory framework on (nano)remediation and of subsequent legislation at national levels. This methodology should include common standards and procedures, which allow the relevant authorities and other end users (e.g. land managers) to assess the costs and benefits of a (nano)remediation application in a particular polluted area. The methodology should cover, among others, health and safety issues, costs, potential results and data in comparison to traditional techniques. It would also allow for a standardised comparison of research results. Challenge 3 – Pilot Applications Pilot Applications were generally awarded an intermediate level of priority. However, its prioritisation is expected to increase at a later stage of analysis. Partners consider that pilots are significant to demonstrate (nano)remediation techniques and their effectiveness. They can also demonstrate the conditions that are required for these techniques to be applied successfully. Policy makers are interested not only in lab results, but also in practical illustrations of how a specific technique works in their own region to address their specific pollutants. Moreover, pilots can be used to make a comparative analysis of techniques in different geographical areas and as applied to different pollutants / polluted areas. When planning a pilot action, it is important to consider in advance the available expertise and financial resources. Indeed, multi-disciplinary knowledge and experience may be required. Challenge 4 – Patents Patenting received the lowest ranking in partners’ prioritisation. Almost every participating region expressed a limited interest on this challenge. At the moment, patents are considered premature, mainly because of low diffusion of such remediation techniques, scarce use and consequently a very small reference market for (nano)remediation solutions. Moreover, high costs for patenting procedures reduce interest for stakeholders at present stage. Challenge 5 – Incentives for In-situ Use The relevance of incentives for in-situ applications received an overall medium/high level of interest. Every region identified the issue as relevant, raising however uncertainties. Public incentives are generally deemed a relevant leverage to consolidate and provide follow-up to results achieved through research and innovation projects/activities. Given the lack of resources allocated to research, incentives for in-situ applications can encourage comparative analysis and, consequently, the use of more cost effective and eco sustainable solutions. However, before in-situ usage, efficiency must be tested and proven (see the above described challenges). Financial support is crucial to promote market-viable results from R&I projects. As there are limited resources available, there must be an effective evaluation process to ensure that European Union | European Regional Development Fund funds are allocated to the most cost-effective solutions. Therefore, before selecting methods, there must be a comparison between the available techniques. Challenge 6 – Awareness Awareness raising on (nano)remediation issues is identified of medium/high importance in every participating region. It is considered as a horizontal issue to the more technical challenges above and it ranked among